In fact, when I try to voice my political views, I often find that I’ve dissembled, and sometimes for entirely different, even opposite reasons on different occasions. I’ll exaggerate my conservatism for liberals. I’ll exaggerate my liberalism for conservatives. Or versa-vice for each. I’ll nod in approval for things I later realize I disagree with completely. My political inclinations are, in fact, more fluid than my religious inclinations, which I like to think is a good thing.

In light of this discussion, it’s interesting that one of the more prominent political pundits (Rameesh Ponnuru of Time and NR), a Catholic conservative, wrote a book called “The Party of Death”, although he has stated many times that it wasn’t directed at Democrats so much as the political aspect of the Culture of Death.

I’ve often toyed with the idea that politics has become a religion in this country. Etymologically speaking, “religion” means “binding back”, or perhaps binding together, and I think this refers to political questions now even more than “religious” ones (which as David B. notes, are considered of a more private nature). The 50/50 R/D split seems to have morphed into a modern version of Manichean dualism, but even worse in that its priests and practitioners aren’t committed so much to the dualism itself (read: political process) as to one half of the divide.

But perhaps the founders intended it this way. They often found themselves faced with choices between binary opposites, with no refuge to be found in an excluded middle. Maybe this is instructive, even constructive, in that it forces decisions to be made, and encourages responsibility and accountability for those decisions.

You can come back and leave comments here ANY TIME, Marcie! Thanks again!

I am glad to see that has changed a bit, but fear the “vile” word could be used to describe both R’s and D’s on some days. Those of us who passionately pursue the balance of center are having a hard time of it, when we see benefits to both.

Maybe we are thinking that we are less politically tolerant because we are talking about it more? Imagine if we had religeous groups “running” and we would have to pick one and be stuck with the “winner”. Then we would see how far people were to go to win that battle.

The passion is admirable on both sides, but I worry about whether we will still love each other in the morning after all the nasty words. Will the hurt be too deep after we have spent so long hating on each other?

Will there be make up (you know what) after this is all over?
Marcie

@WG: sounds exciting (the sleeping with part, not the bummed out part.)

@ Mr. Budd: comic strip: Pogo?

@ Yep: This is the blog that does no evil. And now I expect it to become very, very famous.

@ David: I do think it’s a wee bit more useful to ask questions like yours, e.g., “How much experience and ability does this person have?” than “Are we quite happy about that hair style?” or “Did we like that little Norsky accent/ AME preacher style that she/he gets into when speaking?”

And, the revulsion continues. Some of the members of the band “Heart” were suing the Republican Party because Palin used the “Barracuda” song as she was introduced. The Republican Party claims to have gained and paid for proper permission, but that is not relevant here. By *not* suing, these members associate themselves tacitly with “evil.” That makes sense, right?

The Republicans should campaign on a slogan of “we are not evil” and see what happens. It worked for Google. They claim to “do no evil” as part of their mission statement. As proof, I was speaking with a well educated professional this past weekend who actually said to me that because Google claims to do no evil, they could be trusted. Wow. I think it works.